The Social Responsibility Of A Business

1755 Words8 Pages
MF believed that a business itself cannot have any social responsibility. Only the people who own or are affiliated with the business can have any form of social responsibly. His article, A Friedman Doctrine--: The Social Responsibility of Business if to Increase Its Profits, outlines what this means for a business’s corporate executive. The corporate executive is the employee of the business owner and, therefore, is directly responsible to them. Friedman states that the corporate executive’s responsibility, “…generally, will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical customs (Friedman).” In this sense, the corporate executive’s role…show more content…
This is summarized in his statement, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Friedman)."
Porter and Kramer take a very different stance on this topic. They believe that there is a very real and strong link between CSR and competitive analysis. The modern world ranks businesses on their CSR and directs a significant amount of publicity towards companies who are focused on the health and welfare of their customers and the earth. The traditional mindset concerning CSR puts business and society at odds, when in reality they are interdependent and reliant on each other. Porter & Kramer think that antiquated thoughts about CSR have pressured businesses into thinking that there is an only one generic approach to CSR. This one-size-fits-all mindset does not actually fit all, and it is in no way the best for all business strategies. Porter & Kramer believe this mindset leads to a disconnected and
Get Access